Open 789: Two-Fold 2d3 [Game Over]

[Hiraki]

"They are understandable, yes. I would still like explanation, as some people might vote for faulty reasons, and I would very much like those reasons to be out in the open, for everyone to scrutinize."

This is not what you're saying here. It becomes a paradox.

"They

(the votes that people have put on me)

are understandable

(i.e. you understand why they are there)

, yes." Then, you continue -

"I would still like an explanation

(if you understood the votes, you would have an explanation)

, as some people might vote for faulty reasons ..."

What I don't understand is either if you messed up here or if you're saying that you want them to say their own reasoning - again - so you can scrutinize them in some grandstage act. I'm leaning toward the later.

People voted and people should have made it clear why those votes were made by Page 37 of this game. If it's not clear by now, then ask. I don't know why you have to do a vague "everyone" here when you should have some reads on the people on your wagon?

Furthermore, you understand and have admitted that your predecessor was scummy and therefore people have a legitimate reason to vote you. My problem is that you are then saying that you think that your wagon is illegitimate votes and that people should say why they voted as if there are illegitimate reasons. Why would someone say an illegitimate reason if you yourself, the person who is now in the slot of the person that is currently being criticized, have already admitted that there are numerous legitimate reasons for voting your slot? If you have reasoning to believe what your predecessor did which was scummy you should at least be able to trace some votes to the consequences of that statement. Either through quote or just reading the game.

Lastly, the whole point of this questioning here is that I don't think you're actually trying to find scum but rather you're trying to get votes off your wagon. Again - if the votes are not on

you

why are you trying to defend your "previous" self after saying that they were scummy?

The reason I have enormous trouble taking my vote off your slot is that you have done absolutely nothing so far and haven't brought anything new to the game. I've read your posts - they're fine. I don't even see anything

bad

in your questioning of me like other people believe, just maybe a little cringy. But that's it. Not really much to care about more than getting rid of your slot because I still think it flips scum.

[Jake The Wolfie]

Spoiler: Wallpost condensation

"They are understandable, yes. I would still like explanation, as some people might vote for faulty reasons, and I would very much like those reasons to be out in the open, for everyone to scrutinize."

This is not what you're saying here. It becomes a paradox.

"They

(the votes that people have put on me)

are understandable

(i.e. you understand why they are there)

, yes." Then, you continue -

"I would still like an explanation

(if you understood the votes, you would have an explanation)

, as some people might vote for faulty reasons ..."

What I don't understand is either if you messed up here or if you're saying that you want them to say their own reasoning - again - so you can scrutinize them in some grandstage act. I'm leaning toward the later....

"Neither. I want others to judge them, including themselves. Some people do things simply because others do it. If only there was a word for following a leader.. Ah yes, lambing. Some of my voters might be lambing."

---

People voted and people should have made it clear why those votes were made by Page 37 of this game. If it's not clear by now, then ask. I don't know why you have to do a vague "everyone" here when you should have some reads on the people on your wagon?...

"I asked everyone to allow for everyone to speak up. Keep in mind that at this time, the only understanding that I had of the game was by skimming my predecessor's previous messages. To continue, I did ask everyone because I had no understanding of the game at that time."

---

Furthermore, you understand and have admitted that your predecessor was scummy and therefore people have a legitimate reason to vote you. My problem is that you are then saying that you think that your wagon is illegitimate votes and that people should say why they voted as if there are illegitimate reasons. Why would someone say an illegitimate reason if you yourself, the person who is now in the slot of the person that is currently being criticized, have already admitted that there are numerous legitimate reasons for voting your slot? If you have reasoning to believe what your predecessor did which was scummy you should at least be able to trace some votes to the consequences of that statement. Either through quote or just reading the game.

"Where? Where did I say that people were voting me illegitimately, or that I even think that? All I have stated is that I want to have everyone's reasons out there, and this quote shows why"

"They are understandable, yes. I would still like explanation,

as some people might vote for faulty reasons

...

---

Lastly, the whole point of this questioning here is that I don't think you're actually trying to find scum but rather you're trying to get votes off your wagon. Again - if the votes are not on

you

why are you trying to defend your "previous" self after saying that they were scummy?

"I don't defend people who aren't me, nor have I ever. In fact, quite the opposite, as this quote shows."

to the dramonic post:

1. you say i'm "spamming" the newb card then point out 2 posts. Apparently 2 posts is spamming. Also, it wasn't even spamming the newb card, it was spamming the "i'm new to this site" card which ARE DIFFERENT
2. and you were expecting me to explain my vote change back then... why? it was RvS, the votes literally didn't matter. The "umulaut was sheeping" thing wasn't even being serious to begin with either. Umulaut voting was like, the second post of the game
3. ???? how does this make me scum ????
4. Or maybe, instead of "caught for the wrong reason" it's "towny pushing against the dumbest reason to scumread them they've ever seen" I've been ML'd like 10+ times and that last part isn't even an exaggeration.
5. It's not even an allusion of content, I was just confused about the post in general.

This almost caused Jake to set the transcript on fire, with how terrible it looked.

---

The reason I have enormous trouble taking my vote off your slot is that you have done absolutely nothing so far and haven't brought anything new to the game. I've read your posts - they're fine. I don't even see anything

bad

in your questioning of me like other people believe, just maybe a little cringy. But that's it. Not really much to care about more than getting rid of your slot because I still think it flips scum.

"If you want me gone, then you may continue voting me. No one will stop you from doing such."

[Marashu]

"I think I've read enough. I'm much closer to understanding the votes attracted to me. What an awful decision, to possess this body. Oh well."

But more importantly to help those of us who are still evaluating you, would you say you are closer to understanding the evil in the town?

[Marashu]

(I've re-read the thread, now I'm just digesting it)

[Hiraki]

"Neither. I want others to judge them, including themselves. Some people do things simply because others do it. If only there was a word for following a leader.. Ah yes, lambing. Some of my voters might be lambing."

So why not ask them individually? Are you saying you have no clue who is the leader and who isn't? This is lazy.

"I asked everyone to allow for everyone to speak up. Keep in mind that at this time, the only understanding that I had of the game was by skimming my predecessor's previous messages. To continue, I did ask everyone because I had no understanding of the game at that time."

This doesn't make sense. By the understanding that you had at the beginning of this conversation, you had no understanding of the game but you could at least understand why people would vote you?

"Where? Where did I say that people were voting me illegitimately, or that I even think that? All I have stated is that I want to have everyone's reasons out there, and this quote shows why"

So you want people to restate what they've already said / do your work for you? No thanks.

"I don't defend people who aren't me, nor have I ever. In fact, quite the opposite, as this quote shows."

This doesn't answer my question and that's the second time you've done that. Got it - there is no answer.

[Marashu]

VOTE: Bell - I'm getting some town pings, but I'm also getting some scum pings from this slot. I want pressure here to help sort. I don't know if it's because he's V/LA until Monday, but a lot of his posts feel like fluff and don't really contribute anything. Also not a fan of his intent to park a vote on Hiraki and not move it for the rest of D1.

[Jake The Wolfie]

So why not ask them individually? Are you saying you have no clue who is the leader and who isn't? This is lazy.

"It is a possibility that there is a leader, but that is not the only possibility. I described that as a possibility, not as a certain fact."

This doesn't make sense. By the understanding that you had at the beginning of this conversation, you had no understanding of the game but you could at least understand why people would vote you?

"When you see a plagued transcript from one person, you can understand why people would vote for them. If you read the entire transcript, you gain more knowledge, and possibly more insight. If you read every transcript from every life they've lived, you gain even more knowledge and even more insight."

So you want people to restate what they've already said / do your work for you? No thanks.

"I didn't ask for them to restate what they've already said, I asked for an explanation for why they, as individuals, voted me. Specifically, their logical pathway to determining that I was the best choice of vote. If I voted teacher and cited a few quotes from them, that might give you intuition on why I voted them, but not the pathway that led me there. It describes precisely nothing about, for example, why I did not vote another player I figured to be evil."

This doesn't answer my question and that's the second time you've done that. Got it - there is no answer.

"You asked why, if the votes weren't on me, why I was defending not me. My response was to respond with me specifically showing that I was not defending not me and instead, seeing not me as suspicious."

[Jake The Wolfie]

VOTE: Bell - I'm getting some town pings, but I'm also getting some scum pings from this slot. I want pressure here to help sort. I don't know if it's because he's V/LA until Monday, but a lot of his posts feel like fluff and don't really contribute anything. Also not a fan of his intent to park a vote on Hiraki and not move it for the rest of D1.

Jake turned his focus away from the marvelous word artist that was Hiraki, to the small-spoken Marashu.

"My, this post feels like you are uncertain about your vote. Sir Marashu, could you elaborate on anything that you see as evil or good from Sir Bell?"

[Marashu]

VOTE: Bell - I'm getting some town pings, but I'm also getting some scum pings from this slot. I want pressure here to help sort. I don't know if it's because he's V/LA until Monday, but a lot of his posts feel like fluff and don't really contribute anything. Also not a fan of his intent to park a vote on Hiraki and not move it for the rest of D1.

Jake turned his focus away from the marvelous word artist that was Hiraki, to the small-spoken Marashu.

"My, this post feels like you are uncertain about your vote. Sir Marashu, could you elaborate on anything that you see as evil or good from Sir Bell?"

I can in roughly an hour. Until then, can you please address 927?

[Jake The Wolfie]

"I think I've read enough. I'm much closer to understanding the votes attracted to me. What an awful decision, to possess this body. Oh well."

But more importantly to help those of us who are still evaluating you, would you say you are closer to understanding the evil in the town?

"I am only a few hairs closer than when I started."

[TemporalLich]

VC 1.12

Jake The Wolfie (4) - Almost50, dramonic, Hiraki, Testarossa [E-3]
Dunnstral (3) - teacher, Dannflor, Menalque
teacher (1) - Dunnstral
Hiraki (1) - Bell
dramonic (1) - Gamma Emerald
Bell (1) - Marashu

Not voting: Gypyx, Jake The Wolfie

With 13 alive it takes 7 to exile.

Day 1 will end in (expired on 2020-08-23 18:40:00) or when an exile is reached.

Bell is V/LA until Monday.

Gamma Emerald has been prodded.

[Hiraki]

"It is a possibility that there is a leader, but that is not the only possibility. I described that as a possibility, not as a certain fact."

Again - dodging the question. Why not try to do any of this yourself? Asking the group to explain the thing is not going to get many answers. Considering that you tried to go after me for "not answering questions" by directing that at me, I at least think you should know that, right?

"When you see a plagued transcript from one person, you can understand why people would vote for them. If you read the entire transcript, you gain more knowledge, and possibly more insight. If you read every transcript from every life they've lived, you gain even more knowledge and even more insight."

Okay cool, garbage response. Very easy to read when you don't have an answer because you go into this weird tangent sort of thing where you try to act a little bit more knowledgeable by sounding witty.

"I didn't ask for them to restate what they've already said, I asked for an explanation for why they, as individuals, voted me.

1) You didn't ask any individual, you addressed everyone on your wagon.
2) Asking them for an explanation when they might have already given that explanation is in fact asking for the what they've already said. If your argument is that you're asking them to repeat what they've said, it makes little to no difference.

Specifically, their logical pathway to determining that I was the best choice of vote. If I voted teacher and cited a few quotes from them, that might give you intuition on why I voted them, but not the pathway that led me there. It describes precisely nothing about, for example, why I did not vote another player I figured to be evil."

This is not at all what you were asking for and is very lazy to just throw that out there and expect a proper response. Your point about teacher is moot and not worth arguing over.

[Bell]

Phone post.
@test: Teach #294 seemed AI, I tend to read these types of engagements that way but never feel confident that I learned one way or the other which it is because that put a lot of effort into how they worded that post(or they’re really well practiced!) There’s some performance or using key words from an educated stand point. Kind of like how a politician would say “I hear you” because it shows empathy. But rereading his iso gave me a whole bunch of detailed thoughtful analysis and it breaks my brain that anyone could see that as scum Rn.

Whoever asked about the dunstral rvs take, it’s because it’s a single post, I can barely see what he’s saying when viewed from that lens. And it’s absolutely not the kind of thing that would break my read on a player for one post that was maybe phoned in a little.

@deaconic there’s a lot to be sad about *back pat*

[Bell]

I really need to read this back and forth between Hiraki and noir jake.

[Bell]

Also I read this set up and realized that I think town almost never wins this format and harmony and building a tyrannical town block that steam rolls the other two teams is probably the key to victory.

[Menalque]

mod V/LA until the 21st pls

It will probably not have an effect on my activity but just in case

[Jake The Wolfie]

Again - dodging the question. Why not try to do any of this yourself? Asking the group to explain the thing is not going to get many answers. Considering that you tried to go after me for "not answering questions" by directing that at me, I at least think you should know that, right?

"I did not answer it, as it was a loaded question. Your continuation of your question suggested that the most probable possibility was there being a lambherder."

Okay cool, garbage response. Very easy to read when you don't have an answer because you go into this weird tangent sort of thing where you try to act a little bit more knowledgeable by sounding witty.

"I will admit that I did go on a tangent. To clarify my response: I had only known what the unhonerable TripleHaven had said. By now, I know what most of the transcript says."

1) You didn't ask any individual, you addressed everyone on your wagon.
2) Asking them for an explanation when they might have already given that explanation is in fact asking for the what they've already said. If your argument is that you're asking them to repeat what they've said, it makes little to no difference.

"I never said I asked them individually. I asked them why, as individuals did they vote Triple Haven.

For your second question, I wanted elaboration on any explanation they may or may not have."

[Dunnstral]

Jake who do you want to vote?

[Menalque]

For now I'd like to ask Menalque why he is voting Dunn when he is asserting Hiraki is his biggest SR.

Because teacher is hoping that more votes on dunn will prompt dunn to actually play the game

[Menalque]

And I don’t think dunn is a bad place to be voting anyway

[Dunnstral]

Because teacher is hoping that more votes on dunn will prompt dunn to actually play the game

VOTE: Menalque

Not going to play around this game, anybody who participates in bad faith pushes get eliminated

[Bell]

VOTE: dunstral

[Menalque]

What exactly are you trying to argue is bad faith?

[Bell]

Oh, I think I get it.
He’s saying he has a limited amount of time in life and the idea that he can increase his play time due to pressure is asking too much of him? Or something.

[Marashu]

"My, this post feels like you are uncertain about your vote. Sir Marashu, could you elaborate on anything that you see as evil or good from Sir Bell?"

You're right that I'm uncertain, and I'm hoping that pressure will make it more clear. So here are my reasons for why it's unclear:
I've had a general gut scum ping that I cannot explain right now since he entered the game. But besides that, the following are posts that I find are needlessly clarifying, fluff, or don't really contribute anything besides showing that they are participating in the current discussion:
748
756, 757, and to a lesser extend 760
764
786
834
835
853
860
869
878
882
890, 892 (these posts don't make sense to me in their context)
896, 898 - relevant to discussion with Mena but immaterial
903
907

I also don't like the inflexibility displayed in 879

The town feelings I get from this slot come from:
(as Umlaut) - 197 and 200, and a general towny feel from Umlaut
Trying to read game state in 752
865 largely in relation to 939
The transition from 752 to 768 is plausible
883